can be produced to depose for the Sacrifice of the Eucharist than the sense of those Scriptures of the New Testament already handled which are in a maner all that have any mention of it will inferr and allow There is much noise made with the Priesthood of Melchisedeck of whom wee reade Gen. XIV 19 24. And Melchisedeck King of Salem brought forth bread and wine for hee was the Priest of the most High God And hee blessed him saying Blessed be Abraham of the most High God which owneth heaven and earth In reference whereunto the Psalmist speaking of Christ Psal CX 4. The Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck And the Apostle taking for granted that hee is a figure of Christ in the mystical sense Ebr. VII 13. argueth the voiding of the Levitical Law from the purpose of setting up another Priesthood declared by the Psalm But no where in all that Chapter which is all spent about the Exposition of it so much as intimateth the Priesthood of Christ to consist in any thing but in offering up to God in heaven his own body and bloud sacrificed upon the Crosse to make expiation for the sins of his people and to obtain of God that grace and assistance that comfort and deliverance which their necessities from time to time may require Be it granted neverthelesse that seeing of necessity Melchisedeck is the figure of Christ those things which Melchisedeck is related to have done are also necessarily figures of things done by our Lord Christ For otherwise were not the mystical sense of the Old Testament a laughing stock to unbelievers if it should hold in nothing but that which the Spirit of God hath expounded in the New Testament by our Lord and his Apostles I have therefore to the best advantage translated the words of Moses For not and hee was the Priest of the living God That whoso will may argue thereupon that his bringing forth bread and wine was an act of his Priesthood Which if I would deny no man can constrain mee by virtue of these words to acknowledg But I cannot therefore allow that Translation which sayes Obtulit panem vinum that as Priest hee offered bread and wine in sacrifice to God The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so evidently signifying protulit not obtulit hee brought forth not that hee offered that hee brought forth bread and wine to refrâ—sh Abraham â—nd his people returning weary from the slaughter of the Kings not that hee offered them in sacrifice to God as his Priest the mention of his Priesthood râ—ther advancing the reason why hee blessed them than why hee fed them As both Moses in the words next afore and the Apostle also Ebr. VII 1. intimateth or declareth the intent why hee brought them forth Though if I should grâ—nt that custome which was common to all Idolaters to have been in forâ—e under the Law of nature because wee see it retained and inâ—cted by the Law of Moses not to taste of any thing till some part of it had been dedicated to God in the nature of first-fruits to the sanctifying of the whole till when it was not to be touched I say though I should grant this for a reâ—son why hee may be thought to have offered bread and wine to God not why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be translated protulit hee brought forth no man would have cause to thank mee for any advantage from thence For still the correspondence between Melchisedeck â—nd our Lord Christ would lye in this that our Lord by appointing this Sacrâ—ment brings forth bread and wine to strengthen the peoâ—lâ— of Abraham in their warfare against the powers of darknesse as in the dayes of his flâ—sh hee fed those that attended upon his doctrine least they should faint in their travail Now this will first inferr that it is bread and wine which our Lord feeds us with in the Eucharist And again that it hath the virtue of sustaining us by being made the body and bloud of Christ as in a Sacrament by virtue of the consecration past upon it Which is all that which I say to a hair that by being made a Sacrament it becomes the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to be feasted upon by Christians In like maner be it granted that the words of the Prophet Malachy I. 11. From the rising of the Sun to his going down my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure meat offering For my name shall be great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts is a Prophesie of the institution of this Sacrâ—ment because it is contained in those kindes of breâ—d and wine which served for meat and drink offerings in the Law of Moses But this being granted what shall wee do with the incense and the meat offering which the Prophet speaks of unlâ—sse wee say that they signifie that which corresponds to the meâ—t and drink offerings of the Law and their incense under the Gospel And will not thâ—t prove to be the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which God under the Gospel is served with by all Nations Though those prayers and prâ—â—es of God being by the institution of the Eucharist limited and determined to be such as the celebration thereof requires it is no inconvenience nay it will be necessâ—ry to grant that the sacrifice thereof is fore-told by these words not signifying neverthelesse the nature of it to require any thing more thâ—n is exprâ—ssed by the premises Be the same therefore said if you please of all the Sacrifices of the Old Law of all the Prophesies in which the service to be rendred to God in the New Testament is described by the offering of Sacrifices As for the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria John IV. 23. The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth For the Father seeketh such to worship him God is a Spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Though I grant as afore that this is fulfilled by the celebration of the Eucharist when once wee suppose our Lord to have limited the worship of God under the Gospel to the form of it yet there can be no consideration of a sacrifice signified by these words which neither suppose nor expresse the sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse the Eucharist no way bearing the nature of a sacrifice but as it is the same with it But for the same reason and by the same correspondence between the sacrifices of the Law and that of Christs Crosse it may be evident that it is not nor can be any disparagement to the Sacrifice of our Lord Christ upon the Crosse to the full and perfect satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the world which it hath made that the Eucharist should be
the means of his own choice Though it is impossible that speaking to men it should express all that God considereth to ground his fore knowledge yet by that which it expresseth it obligeth us to understand all that appeareth either to man to determine his choice or to God to ground his fore-knowledge Which though proceeding from his effectuall providence yet supposing mans freedome cannot be understood any way to impeach it And upon these terms it may be understood how future conditionals may be subject to the infinite capacity of Gods understanding in as much as knowing what a man with these inclinations being moved with these considerations will do he must needs know what he would have done had either his inclinations or the consideration presented been other then they are God comprehending those which might have been no lesse then those which are And thus propositions concerning future possibilities may be said to be known to God whether true or false supposing the terms of them to intimate whatsoever may appear to God in the cases whereof they speak which no termes that man can use can expresse And therefore the like cannot be said of possibilities proposed to depend upon impertinent conditions As who should say If the Turke take Candy the Pope will condemn Iansenius For what possibility can depend upon a condition that is supposed not to come into the consideraion of him that must effect it It is alleged indeed that Elias saith to Elizeus 2 Kings II. 20. If thou seest me when I am taken from thee it shall so come to passe to thee if not it shall not But it is no marvell that Elias knowing that both his Scholers desire and his seeing of him as he was going up into heaven should come to passe should seeme to suspend the one upon the other not because God had appointed any such dependence but to signifie that he must be content to expect for the present and that when he saw him part he might rest assured of it But it is alleaged also that Elizeus said to King Jâ—ash 2 Kin. XII 19. Thou shouldest have stuck the Earth with thine arrow five or six times then shouldest thou have smitten Aram till they had been destroyed To which I answer that is a Prophesy and that God had revealed to his prophets that the Israelites should overcom the Syrians as many times as the King should strike the earth Not meaning that if more or lesse then three the number of the victories might be other then three But knowing that he would strike thrice and having intended them so many victories Therefore the Prophet is angry at the King for strikeing but thrice because he might have expected knowing no more then I have said that the Israelites should have utterly destroyed the Syrians knowing that they should overcome them as oft as hee should strike And this sense agreeth well enough with the Hebrew where theindicative servs for all the moods traâ—slating it Then mighst thou have smitten Aram till he had been destroyed Because the revelation which he had would have borne it not because God had suspended the event upon acondition so impertinent For in conditionals neither the truth of the condition nor of that which is inferred is requisite to make them true but onely the truth of the inference consequence or dependence If the Sun rise not at such an hour we shall not have day It is a certaine truth Not because the Sun will not rise at his hour or that rising we shall not have day But because the consequence is necessarily true And therefore he who by pronouncing a conditionall affirmeth a dependence between the parts of it when as indeed there is none speakes not onely an impertinence but an untruth If there be a dependence between them though God onely knew it he saith true If none false If it be requisite that Dâ—vines may understand one another the better to call this Gods middle knowledg be it so called if you please upon termes I contend not In the meane time let me say that God not onely seeth from everlasting those contingencies which shall come to passe every one in their severall times but also foreseeth that they shall come to passe Which though all a thing yet are grounded upon severall reasons For all sight implying the being of that whereof it expresseth the presence to that which sees the view which God hath of future contingencies â—mplyeth that they are present to him in his indivisible eternity in that difference of time the whole succession whereof the instant of Gods Eternâ—ty without succession answers Buâ— when God by resolving to produce that state of â—hings which he chuseth comprehends what will follow this knowledg being the ground upon which he sees what will come to passe cannot be that knowledg which representing it to him as present must needs presuppose and not produce the bâ—ing of it And upon these premises I know what to say to the opinion of some of the Schoole that the ground of Gods foreknowledg of future contingencies stands in their being present to his eternity from everlasting though in that difference of time which they hold in the succession which the world is to indure which whole succession the one indivisible moment of Gods eternity answereth For though it is not to be denyed that God sees all future contingencies as thus present to him from everlasting yet is it still to be demanded what is the ground of this their presence and how they come to be present to God seeing they neither could bepresent to him not first supposing them to have being nor could have being of themselves as capable of notbeing as well as of being for this is the nature of future contingencies Seeing then that the presence of fuâ—ure contingencies to God in his eternity being supposed were notwithstanding forced to inquire how it comes to passe whatsoever proves the true reason of that wil prove the true ground upon which they may be foreseen it followes necessarily that the determination of contingencies which qualifieth them future in the notion of that which shall be not of that which may be in all the ground why they are present to the view of God which presence inferreth that it is foreknown to God that they shall be at that time in regard whereof they are called future But this opinion I confesse is liable to divers great difficulties Here in the first place it may be objected That by this meanes wee make God pick up that knowledg that goes before his providence to direct it from his creatures collecting by the inclination which he sees to be in them what they will doe when they come to be in such or such an estate accordingly resolving to bring them or not to bring them to it To which I answer that this imagination is no lesse abusive then that upon which Epicurus denied providence for feare God should be troubled with that
in nature as the worship of the true God and the worship of the Devil for God because that is done before an image Let us survay the matters of fact which we have in the Scriptures Moses thus warneth the Israelites Deut. IV. 15-19 Take heed unto your selves least you corrupt your selves and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likenesse of male or female the likenesse of any beast that is on the earth the likeness of any winged foul that flieth in the aire the likenesse of any thing that creepeth on the ground the likenesse of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth And least thou lift up thine eyes to heaven and when thou seest the Sunne and the Moone and the Starres even all the host of heaven shouldest be pushed aside to worship them and to serve them which the Lord thy God hath imparted unto all nations under the whole heavens It is like enough that the first Idolatry that ever was practised was the worship of the Sunne the Moone and the Stars But that it was a part of the Gentiles Idolatries by the Scripture alone it is evident and certaine The Jewes as Moses Maimoâ—i relateth in the Title of Idolatry at the beginning tell us that out of admiration of the beauty and constant motions of those glorious bodies men began of themselves to conceive that it would be a thing pleasing to God to addresse themselves to him by the mediation of those creatures which they could not chuse but think so much nearer to him then themselves That this conceit being seconded with pretended revelations to the same purpose brought forth in time the offering of sacrifices to them and making of images of them by meanes whereof the blessings of God might be procured through their influence And Origen often gathereth out of those words that God allowed the Gentiles afore the Law to worship the Sunne and the Moone and the Starrs that they might proceed no further to worse Idolatries Though so farre as I have observed he is not seconded herein by any of the Fathers Nor can he in my opinion be any further excused then the Booke of Wisdome doth excuse him making the worship of the Elements of the World the lightest sort of Idolatries Wisd XIII 10. It is a thing agreeable to all experience that by degrees and not in an instant mankind should be seduced to forget God having had the knowledge of God at the first derived unto them from their first parents and to take his creatures for God But will any man therefore undertake that when they were come so farre as to worship the Sunne and the Moon and the Starres by sacrifices and incense and all those actions whereby the honour of God was first expressed all this was done in honour to God because they were conceived to be nearer him then other of his creatures How will he then answer S. Paul when he saith Rom. I. 25. That the Gentiles changed the true God into a ly and worshipped and served the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides or parallel to the Creator who is God blessed for evermore For where was the ly but in taking the creature for God And how could they worship and serve the creature hand in hand with God but by degrading God into the rank of his creature and advancing the creature into the rank to which God was degraded by their false and lying conceit How could they expresse this honour by actions formerly appropriated to the service of God had they not first been seduced in the conceit of that honour which they robbed God of to give it his creatures But it is a thing certaine and palpable in the Idolatries of the Gentiles that they deified dead men by attributing unto them the names of the Heavens the Sunne the Moone the rest of the Planets and other Constellations of the Aire the Earth the Waters in fine of the World and the Elements of it So that Idolatry was committed both to the men and to those worldly bodies at once In this case will any man be so willfull as to hold still that these worldly Bodies were no otherwise honoured then in relation to God as his creatures when as it appeareth that the honour due to God alone was studiously procured for dead men by insinuating ridiculous perswasions into the mindes of people seduced to think that they were deified in those Bodies Wherefore it is not to be denied that those creatures were advanced to the honour of God by degrading God into the rank of his creatures as if there might as well be more Gods then one as more creatures of a kind then one Againe when Moses warneth them of making the image of any creature can any man doubt that his reason is least it should be worshipped with the same honour which immediately he forbids the Sunne and Moone and Starres to be honoured with And could the meer priviledge of being Gods creature move any man to take any before another and to make an image of it that under it he might honour God that made it Or was it requisite that first men should conceive an excellence in the creature which if expressed with the same actions whereby they honoured God of necessity it must be taken for the same which they attributed to God And what is that but the opinion of more Gods Can any man find fault with that which the Fathers have so frequently objected to the Gentiles that the gods whom they worshipped were dead men seeing before his eyes in the records of the Romanes Macedonians and Persians during the time of Historicall truth that their Princes were of course as it were deified and worshipped as gods after their death And was all this done in relation to one true God whose graces they had been the meanes to convey to so great a part of mankind Or in despite of that light of one true God though inshrined in their brests they suffered to be overwhelmed with that ignorance which custome had brought to passe Is it possible to imagine that the Egyptians should tremble at those living creatures or those fruits of their gardens which they honoured for their gods if they had taken them for creatures of one true God whom they intended to honour by and under those his creatures Or was it necessary that they should further conceive the Godhead in one City to be inclosed in this creature in another in that and thereupon find themselves obliged to honour the same for God In fine doth not the Scripture in many places plainly declare that which I pointed at in proposing my argument that the Idolatry of the Gentiles was the worshipping of Devils in stead of God Why the Israelites are commanded to sacrifice no where but before the Tabernacle the reason is given Levit XVII 7. And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils after whom they have gone a whoring Deut. XXXIII 17. They
sacrificed unto Idolâ— which were not God To gods whom they knew not to new gods that came newly up whom your Fathers seared not Sacrificing to new gods they sacrificed to devils Psal CVI. 35 37 38. And they served their Idols which were a snare to them yea they sacrificed their sonnes and daughters unto devils and shed innocent bloud even the bloud of their sonnes and daughters whom they offered to the Idols of Canaan and the land was defiled with bloud Offering their sons and daughters to the Idols of Canaan they offered them to devils And S. Paul 1 Cor. X. 19 20 21. What say I then that an Idol is any thing Or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing As afore VIII 4. we know that an Idol is nothing in the world and that there is but one God but I say that the thinges which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and not to God And I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and the table of devils Having said that an Idol is nothing and that things sacrificed to Idols are nothing because they are sacrificed to that which is nothing and that because there is but one God how doth he inferre that things sacrificed to Idols are sacrificed to devills Surely idols are nothing because there is but one God in regard they pretend to be gods that is to say images of gods whereas indeed there can be no more Gods but one And if this were all since nothing can have no effect sacrificing to idols being nothing could not pollute the sacrifices as some Christians alledged to prove that they might eat of things sacrificed to Idols But because in sacrificing to nothing the devill steps into Gods place having caused that nothing to be taken for a God and maintaining that conceit by the same wayes which he raised it with therefore all that communicated in serving those idols which all did that communicated in the feasts which they made of those sacrifices communicated in the worship of devils Whereby it is evident that idolatry presupposeth an erroneous opinion of a false Godhead under which the devil suborneth himself to be worshipped whom did men take for that which Christians take him for they would be farre enough from worshipping him for God And herewith agreeth the reason of idolatry in the worshipping of images For by the premises it is evident that idolatry is more ancient then the worship of images and perhaps the truth is it came not in till the custome came up to worship dead men for gods which as I said afore I believe was later then the worshipping of the elements of the world though I go not out of my way to prove it nothing obliging me so to do Now it appeares by Varrâ— in S. Augustine De Civitate Dei IV. 31. that the Romanes had subsisted above CLXX yeares before they had images But let no man therefore imagine that they were not idolaters during that time For it is evident that there is no record of learning so ancient among the Gentiles as their Idolatries onely the Scripture recordeth time before the same The words of Varro there recorded by the said Saint Augustine tell us truth in that businesse that those who brought in images errorem addidisse metum dempsisse Increased error abated Religion For it is not strange that a knowing man as Varro was should bear witnesse to that truth which the Centiles imprisoned in unrighteousnesse by acknowledging an error in the multitude of their Gods which was by that time grown so ridiculous that a child should it have spoken what reason indited might have reproved it This Error then Varro saith not that it sprung from Images but that they were the means to increase it though to the a batement of Religion which could be but counterfeit when men tooke upon them to make their own Gods But was it thus with the Romans onely was not the case the same with the Grecians also before Sculpture and Picture and other waies of Imagery were devised chiefly for the advancement of this error as the wise Jew Wisdom XIV 18-21 and diveres of the ancient Fathers of the Church as S. Austine de civitate Dei XVIII 24. in Psalm CIII do often alleage Why doe we reade then in Pausanias his most excellent survay of Greece that of old time they worshiped stones onely sharpned at the top for their Gods Could they have found in their heart so to doe had they not formerly imagined a Deity which they meant to remind themselves of by so grosse a marke rather then image But is not this madnesse an evidence that they came by degrees to the representation of those Dieties which they had imagined afore and sought onely meanes to have them alwaies present Joseph Scaliger in that learned appendix to his book de Emendatione Temporum showeth us that the Phenicians had the like custome of having of rude stones for the symboles of their Gods And no marvile For by the act of Jacobs pouring oyle upon the stone at Bethel it appeareth that the Fathers themselves used such records of the true God and of his worship which Idolaters afterwards imagined their false Gods to be present at and thereupon no marvrile that the Law prohibited afterwardes Levit. XXVI 2. seeing it is evident by the writings of the Grecians and the Romans that Idolatry increasing it became an ordinary custome to make every stock and every stone a monument of that Worship which every superstitious sool thought he had cause there to tender to his God by pouring oil upon it as Jacob did Gen. XXVIII 18. by dedicating garlands or the like as Tilullus hath expressed in these verses Et veneror seu stipes habet desertus in agris Sive quiâ— exiguus florea serta lapis with infinite more authors to that purpose And can any man doubt that the Idolatrie of the Persians were not as bad as these though they had neither statues nor pictures Surely those Hethen Philosophers found it otherwise who being weary of the Empire under Justinian because of the ill countenance they found there in favour to Christianity and betaking themselves into Persia as Agathias in his second book relateth found themselves quickly weary of it in regard of those barbarous customes as they understood them which the Idolatries of the Persians had introduced Thus much for certaine that worship which the fire was served with by the Persians was not that which could be tendred in honour of God that made it as conceiving it a prime creature So that considering these things without prejudice wee must needs stand convict that Idolatry in generall is more ancient then the worship of images though particular Idolatries must needs be advanced by it And in that instance that the wise Jew propoundeth for the beginning of idolatry
it could be the same crime in them to worship the true God under an image as in the Gentiles to worship the elements of the world dead men imaginations in effect the Devile under the like image They made a calfe in Horeb and worshiped the molten image Thus they turned their glory into the similitude of a Calfe that eateth hay saith David Psalme CVI. 19. 20 of this act of the Isralites They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts and creeping things saith S. Paul Rom. I. 23. of the Gentiles who as I have showed did truly intend to worship those creatures for Gods And therefore must conclude that whatsoever Aaron might pretend to represent to the Israelits by this Calfe that they intended to worship for God And when the Israelites joined themselves to Baal Peor and ate the offerings of the dead Psal CVI. 23 Num. XXV 3-8 and Moses commandeth to hang up the Princes and the Judges to slay every one his man that were joyned to Baal Peor Phineas out of his zeale to God executeth his command not out of a private inspiration whereof nothing could appeare as hath fondly and perniciously been imagined and killeth a Prince among the Israelites But when Moses comming downe from the mount saw the calfe made he caused the Levites to revenge the fault by slaying three thousand of those that were guilty of it Ex. XXXII 25-30 And is it possible for any man to believe that the same punishment is assigned by God to the offering of sacrifices to a dead man as to the offering of it to the living God under or before an image Not that I intend to say this of Aaron or what his intention might be in complying with them and avoiding their mutiny without ever imbracing in his heart that idolatry to which he pretended to conâ—urre with them nor will I much contend with him that shall say he chose that figure which might represent something concurring to that worship of God which himselfe had commanded but the act of them that mutinousely constrained him to make them a God to goe before them I can by no meanes distinguish from the idolatries of Egypt which it was but late that they had forsaken As for Jeroboam it is most truly alleged that nothing obliged him to demand of the Isralites to worship any false God or to require of them more then Aaron had done upon their motion concurring himselfe to their Idolatry But then I must say also that by setting up his calves and constraining the people to resort to them for that worship which the Law obliged them to tender to God he certainely knewe that he must needs occasion the greatest part of the people to worship an other God besides the true God howsoever some of them might do that which Aaron had done in concurring with the rest of their people And perhaps the truth is that Jeroboam for this reason made choice of the same image wherein Aaron had offended afore But otherwise the appearance of the Idolatry of the gentiles in the act of Jeroboam that is in the service tendred his calves is evident in the scripture Otherwise how should the prophet Ahiah charge him that he had set up other Gods and molten images and groves 2. Kings XIV 9 15 16. as by Jeroboams owne fin And Baasha that walked in the way of Jeroboam 2. Kings XV. 24. as did also Omri after him 1 Kings XVI 26. are said to have provoked the Lord God of Israell to anger with their vanities 1. Kings XVI 13. 26. And Abia reproches Jeroboam 1 Chron. XIII 9. and his party that they had made them Pristes after the manner of the nations and other lands so that whosoever cometh to fill his hand with a bullock and seven Rames may be a Priest of no Gods For what are vanities or no gods but imaginary deities as Saint Paul saith that he preached to the Gentiles to turn from those vanities unto the living God Acts XIV 15. And the Prophet Jonas in his prayer II. 8. they that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in David Psal XXXII 7. Lying vanities is the same that S. Pauls ly when he saith the Gentiles changed the truth of God into a ly in worshipping the creature besides the creator God blessed for evermore Rom. I. 25. So also Deut. XXXII 22. 2 Kings XVII 15. Jeremy II. 5. VIII 19. X. 15. XIV 22. And why should the Prophet Osee object VIII 6. The workman made it therefore it is not God but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces Had not the calfe been taken for God And againe Os XIII 2. They say of them let the men that sacrifice kisse the calves For that this kissing was a signe of worshipping that which was taken to be God you have from Job XXXI 26 27. If I beheld the Sunne when it shined or the Moone walking in her height and my heart hath been seduced and my mouth hath kissed my hand The Sunne and the Moone being at a distance because they whose hearts were seduced to think them gods could not kisse them they kissed their hands to them in signe that they honoured them for gods Therefore they that kissed the calves whom they might come nigh did it in signe that they honoured them for gods As the answer of God to Elias saith I have reserved my self seven thousand men all the knees that have not bowed unto Baal all the mouthes that have not kissed him 1 Kings XIX 18. And therefore it seemeth very probable that these calves are also called Baalim by the said Prophet when he saith Osee XIII 1 2. When Ephraim offended in Baal he died And now they sin more and more and have made them molten images of their silver and Idols according to their own understanding all of it the work of craftsmen They say of them let the men that sacrifice kisse the calves The author of Tobit is for his antiquity more to be credited in the understanding of the Scriptures then all the conjectures we can make at this distance of time And he saith that the ten tribes went up to offer sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tobit I. 5. to the heifer Baal Whereupon it is thought that S. Paul also when he quoteth the answer of God to Elias 1 Kings XIX 18. I have reserved my self seven thousand men that have not bowed the knee to Baal in the feminine gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. XI 4. referreth to the feminine substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if these calves were of the nature of Baalim it cannot be denied that they signified imaginary godheads such as the Baalim were Wherefore when it is objected in the first place that Aaron proclaimed a feast to the Lord by the name of the true God and that both he and Jeroboam said This is the
fit for a private person to say what might be condescended to for the reunion of the Church stopping the way upon those mischiefs which the flourishing times of the Church have not prevented While all bounds are refused all extreamities maintained I alledge it for one of the most considerable titles for reformation without the consent of the whole As for the remaines of the Saints bodies and the honour of them having said this of their Souls whereof their bodies had been the instruments I shall need to say but a little Gennadius I will not forget De Eccles dogmat Cap. LXXIII Sanctorum corpora praecipue beatorum Martyrum reliquias acsi Christi membra sincerissime honoranda Basilicas eorum nominibus appellatas velut loca sancta divino cultui mancipata affâ—ctu piissimo devotione fidelâ—ssima adeundas credimus Si quis contra hanc sententiam venerit non Christianus sed Eunomianus Vigilantianus est We believe that we are most sincerely to honour the corpses of the Saints specially the reliques of the Martyres as of the members of Christ And to come to the Churches called by their names with most pious affection and most faithfull devotion If any man do against this sentence he is no Christiane but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius At the first the places of their buriall and times of their triumphs determined the circumstances of Gods service Afterwards when more Churches were requisite then there were Saints to bury their remaines where the Eucharist was celebrated seemes an honor proper for the purpose Nay though S. Jerome confesse that those pore women which lighted candles in houour of them had the zeale of God not according to knowledg supposing both Jewes and Gentiles had a custome to light candles on all occasions which they would honourably celebrate why should it seeme a ceremony unfit to expresse mens esteeme of Gods Grace in them If Vigilantius could not downe with this I have nothing to doe with Vigilantius But there were abuses even before that time Lucilla reproved by Cacilianus Deacon of Carthage for kissing the reliques of some questionable Martyre before the Eucharist by her mony and faction raised the schisme of the Donatist upon his being chosen Bishop Optatus I. S. Austin knew many Christians that worshipped tombes and pictures de moribus Eccles Cath. cap. XXXIV Vigilantius might desire onely that bounds might be put to prevent abuses and in that might be borne out by those Prelates whom S. Jerom taxes In that I doe not find Vigilantius condemned by the Church And those bounds were easily determined if prayer to Saints did not transgresse the bounds of revealed truth For were nothing done that should suppose that they heare the prayers that are made them there should be no considerable occasion to transgresse the bounds of honour due unto their reliques As for the worshipping of images of necessity the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or carved Image in the second commandement must either stand for any similitude so the making or having of any maner of image will be forbidden by the precept Or for the similitude of any imaginary Godhead And so no image but those are forbidden by it According to that former sense the making of the brazen serpent the Cherubins over the Arke is a dispensation of God in his own positive law which is easily understood But Solomon making the Buls the Lions Eagles Cherubins in his temple will be no lesse and wil require a revelation to warrant it According to the later making of images will be no more prohibited the Jewes then other nations by the Law But God having constituted a power in the Nation to limit the Law and so to make a hedge for it as the Jewes speake that which they forbid will be by that meanes prohibited by the Law And so there might be such an image in Davids house as we read of 1. Sam. XIX 12. that is such an one as was not so prohibited And by the sâ—me reason the tribute money might have Caesars picture on it which otherwise must be against the Law And when Josephus saies that Solomon incurred blame â—y making images of living creatures in the Temple it will appear that their constitutions in his time forbad the making of such Tertullian contra Marc II. 22. manifestly affirms the making of the Brazen Serpent Cherubines not to have been against the Law because not made for Idoles alleging the words of the precept Thou shalt not worship them nor serve them For a restriction limiting the generality of a carved image And this opinion I doubt not to be true and that there is no third to be named For if it be said that the meaning of the precept is Thou shalt make no Image that may give occasion to worship it Noâ— supposing a conceit of more Gods then one an image is not a thing that can make a man thinke so supposing the conceite of a God besides the true God without an image a man will worship the same Now either God by saying Thou shalt make no image that may give occasion to worship it refers it to every man to judge whether the image that he may make gives occasion to worship it or not And then he leaves it to every man to make any image which he judges to give none Or he refeâ—â— it to the power which he appointeth to oblige the nation in that behalfe to judge Which is that which I say And therefore seeing no man is left to himselfe to judge in that which God hath appointed a power to determine of necessity this sense is the same which I maintaine The consequence whereof is that it is in the power of the Church to judge whether images are to be had and that in Churches or not For the power that concludes the Church being the same with the power that concludes the Synagogue as the Synagogue and the Church are both one and the same people of God under the Law and the Gospell It is not possible to limit this power under the Gospell not to place images in Churches by vertue of this Law which provides nothing concerning Churches The case would come to be the same if we should suppose the precept to prohibit the making of an Image For then the matter would necessarily evidence that it was positive and given onely the people of the Jewes for that estate which the Law introduced Seeing not onely that which is ceremoniall but also that which is positive in Moses Law necessarily ceaseth to oblige Christians The reason why the Law provideth not to the contrary is that which I have alleged why Christians are not tyed to parte with wives or husbâ—nds that are Idolaters as the Jewes were out of S. Austine That whilst the blessings of the world were the promises which God conditioned to give them that should keepe his Lawes the prosperity of this world might move Israelites according to